Japanese earthquake / tsunami discussion

gbee

Coles wrote: »

So what's happening with the Nuclear accident? It's not covered on the news any more... I assume it's all cleaned up now and there's nothing for the Japanese people to worry about?

Right?


RIGHT??

Did you follow the videos?

You'll have heard how Japanese people do not have the right to clean air, right, you heard that didn't you?

It'll be ten years before the Japanese Governments can begin to tackle the Fukushima clean up.

Tents are being built to attempt to contain the continuing radiation leaks, they will not stop for several years but they just might be contained inside new tents.

What's the half life of plutonium? Where has it been found?

Coles

Link to Fairewinds. The 4th August update is worth watching. Gundersen talks about the massive levels of radiation found on site at Fukushima, how they were concentrated at the chimney stacks because so much radiation was vented to the atmosphere, and the impact the high levels will have on the clean up.

Overheal

You'll have heard how Japanese people do not have the right to clean air, right, you heard that didn't you?

In the interest of total pedantry: neither do you.

gbee

Overheal wrote: »

In the interest of total pedantry: neither do you.

You have actually watched the videos? A government official said he did not think the Japanese people had that right in answer to a question from a reporter about right to clean air.

He then abandons the news conference as the reported looked like they'd lynch him there and then.

Overheal

No I don't care to spend the half hour, as it won't change the idea that they and I and You do not have a Right to Clean Air. At least I don't think it's something covered conventionally, unless I am mistaken. Am I?

shedweller

Overheal, regardles of how well you post here, there is still the glaringly obvious fact that coverage of fukushima has virtually evaporated. If the nuclear power plants were not there, there may equally not have been much coverage now. But...the fact remains that there is a long term disaster in the making there. One that shows nuclear power in a bad light. One that dents the profits of the nuclear power lobby, no doubt. Suspicious? Hell yes! I have a brain and so does a lot of people. And we ARE suspicious!

Lone Stone

Cathaoirleach wrote: »

Angry Fukushima residents wanting answers (19th July)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QW3_N8fy8vw

that is shocking

Run_to_da_hills

Anyone that would consider moving in to within a fifty mile radius of Fukushima would be a fool.

Overheal

I have a brain and so does a lot of people.

Tee hee

shedweller wrote: »

Overheal, regardles of how well you post here, there is still the glaringly obvious fact that coverage of fukushima has virtually evaporated. If the nuclear power plants were not there, there may equally not have been much coverage now. But...the fact remains that there is a long term disaster in the making there. One that shows nuclear power in a bad light. One that dents the profits of the nuclear power lobby, no doubt. Suspicious? Hell yes! I have a brain and so does a lot of people. And we ARE suspicious!

What does that theory have to do with clean air rights?

For another thing are you familiar with any major developments in the fukushima situation that would warrant more media attention and more of the fear mongering that went with it? I'm all for media attention and fearmonegering but at least supply a reason for it.

Ficheall

Overheal wrote: »

For another thing are you familiar with any major developments in the fukushima situation that would warrant more media attention and more of the fear mongering that went with it?

Major developments relatively speaking, or things that would have made the headlines had people not been trying to forget/sweep Fukushima under the carpet?
http://enenews.com/ provides a great list of things that warrant media attention...

shadowninty

Is any one freaked out by the quietness of the Japanese media? I mean, its great they arent fear mongering, but like they´re awful quiet. Different culture I guess

Overheal

Ficheall wrote: »

Major developments relatively speaking, or things that would have made the headlines had people not been trying to forget/sweep Fukushima under the carpet?
http://enenews.com/ provides a great list of things that warrant media attention...

Thats a great news feed and not being dismissive about the severity of the issue but why does it currently warrant ongoing foreign media attention? I'm sure plenty of reports will crop up time to time that update people on the situation but since it is no longer a crisis for say the Eastern US, or Europe, whats the point of minute-to-minute reporting of this issue? Is there something we can do about it? Japan basically snubbed aid. And they have a fair size pool of it to accept if they need it. The only thing else we can do is let the regulators do their inspections of our Nuclear Energy at home and that won't happen overnight. There is no helpful purpose in keeping the media hyped up about closing down Europe/America's Nuclear Energy sources in the midst of economic crisis. Most people have enough on their plates just trying to put food on the table without worrying that it's irradiated.

Coles

Fukushima Radiation Alarms Doctors, - Al Jajerra

Doctors in Japan are already treating patients suffering health effects they attribute to radiation from the ongoing nuclear disaster.

"We have begun to see increased nosebleeds, stubborn cases of diarrhoea, and flu-like symptoms in children," Dr Yuko Yanagisawa, a physician at Funabashi Futawa Hospital in Chiba Prefecture, told Al Jazeera.

She attributes the symptoms to radiation exposure, and added: "We are encountering new situations we cannot explain with the body of knowledge we have relied upon up until now."

"The situation at the Daiichi Nuclear facility in Fukushima has not yet been fully stabilised, and we can't yet see an end in sight," Yanagisawa said. "Because the nuclear material has not yet been encapsulated, radiation continues to stream into the environment."

More...

Coles

Photographs from inside Fukushima, -The Guardian.

Run_to_da_hills

Coles wrote: »

Photographs from inside Fukushima, -The Guardian.

Chernobyl all over again. :mad:

Nuclear energy will NEVER be safe.

shadowninty

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Chernobyl all over again. :mad:

Nuclear energy will NEVER be safe.

What the you propose we power our energy intensive lives with? :pac:

Worztron

shadowninty wrote: »

What the you propose we power our energy intensive lives with? :pac:

• Geothermal
• Solar
• Tidal
• Wave
• Wind

Nuclear power seems to be wonderful until it goes horribly wrong. Fossil fuels are finite and are ruining the environment.

Worztron

Worztron wrote: »

• Geothermal
• Solar
• Tidal
• Wave
• Wind

Nuclear power seems to be wonderful until it goes horribly wrong. Fossil fuels are finite and are ruining the environment.

Until consumers are prepared to pay extra or use less, it ain't going to happen (replace nuclear that is).

shadowninty

Worztron wrote: »

• Geothermal
• Solar
• Tidal
• Wave
• Wind

Nuclear power seems to be wonderful until it goes horribly wrong. Fossil fuels are finite and are ruining the environment.

The issue with that is that there is no base power generation capability there (I guess Geothermal would be plausible for some countries, and wave powers relative predictability could be useful for smart tech (devices that charge when there is excess generation capacity, heavy machinery that operates when this power is available.)). Hydro is being largely used to its potential (I guess some non generative dams could be converted).
Solar and wind aren't really practical base power wise, although it makes sense to harness their power, I guess said smart tech could play a role here)
There is also the problem of places to put these things. In Ireland we have lots of windy coasts but what about China, Turkey? The worlds population is growing in population and in its desire for energy.
The great thing about renewables and nuclear is that they are great till it goes horribly wrong (unlike fossil fuels)

jsd1004

Worztron wrote: »

• Geothermal
• Solar
• Tidal
• Wave
• Wind

Nuclear power seems to be wonderful until it goes horribly wrong. Fossil fuels are finite and are ruining the environment.

“Fukushima showed that the risk of nuclear power is too high.”

In fact, Fukushima showed just the opposite. How’s that? Well for starters, ask yourself what the death toll was at Fukushima. 100? 200? 10? Not true. Try zero.

To think rationally about nuclear safety, you must identify the whole context. As the late, great energy thinker Petr Beckmann argued three decades ago in his contrarian classic "The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear," every means of generating power has dangers and risks, but nuclear power “is far safer than any other form of large-scale energy conversion yet invented.”

To date, there have been devised only five practical means of producing large-scale, affordable, reliable energy: coal, natural gas, oil, hydroelectric, and nuclear. (Although widely-hyped and frequently subsidized, solar and wind power -- which generate energy from highly diffuse and intermittent sources -- have failed for forty years to deliver.) Whether you’re concerned about a dangerous accident or harmful emissions, a nuclear power plant is the safest way to generate power.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/07/23/nuclear-power-is-extremely-safe-thats-truth-about-what-learned-from-japan/#ixzz1VfAR7pMR

Back to Chernobyl. There is general agreement that 30 to 60 people died in the immediate aftermath of the accident. Beyond that, epidemiological studies generally don’t indicate a statistically significant increase in cancer incidence in populations exposed to Chernobyl fallout.

http://newmatilda.com/2011/04/07/do-we-know-chernobyl-death-toll

ScumLord

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Chernobyl all over again. :mad:

Nuclear energy will NEVER be safe.

As we learn more and get more experience building nuclear reactors they are getting safer but it's always going to be a potential problem because of the level of energy these places produce.

But even this reactor stood up fairly well to what was a massive natural disaster. If a suitable natural disaster took place near a hydro electric dam it would have caused much more problems as we've seen with burst dams in the past. Everything carries a risk and it's likely the next generation of nuclear power stations will even be built to withstand tsunamis.

Worztron

shadowninty wrote: »

The great thing about renewables and nuclear is that they are great till it goes horribly wrong (unlike fossil fuels)

Please explain to me how renewable energy can go horribly wrong!

vibe666

jsd1004 wrote: »

“Fukushima showed that the risk of nuclear power is too high.”

In fact, Fukushima showed just the opposite. How’s that? Well for starters, ask yourself what the death toll was at Fukushima. 100? 200? 10? Not true. Try zero.

afaik, there was actually one death as a result of the nuclear accident.

Posting from my mobile at the minute tho, so not able to provide a link, but I mentioned it previously in the thread when it happened.

geetar

Worztron wrote: »

Please explain to me how renewable energy can go horribly wrong!

as ScumLord said, if that quake happened at a hydroelectric dam, the death toll would be many thousands.



no one seems to appreciate the rarity of this natural disaster. the biggest quake recorded in a long time is of course going to cause damage.


we have no fault lines, modern plants are extremely safe, there is no issue.



also, more people die in coal mines. 7 die every day in china, im pretty sure that leads to many many times more then any nuclear disaster ever.

ed2hands

jsd1004 wrote: »

Whether you’re concerned about a dangerous accident or harmful emissions, a nuclear power plant is the safest way to generate power.

jsd1004 wrote: »

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/07/23/nuclear-power-is-extremely-safe-thats-truth-about-what-learned-from-japan/#ixzz1VfAR7pMR

Quoting Fox News for a nuclear issue, who are in turn quoting Ayn Rand Institute?

For shame:pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXFUUGeV1DI

jsd1004 wrote: »

Back to Chernobyl. There is general agreement that 30 to 60 people died in the immediate aftermath of the accident. Beyond that, epidemiological studies generally don’t indicate a statistically significant increase in cancer incidence in populations exposed to Chernobyl fallout.

http://newmatilda.com/2011/04/07/do-we-know-chernobyl-death-toll

It's not a bad article actually, but the above quote from it is rubbish.

jsd1004

Worztron wrote: »

Please explain to me how renewable energy can go horribly wrong!

Its horrible when you have no electricity.

http://www.aweo.org/problemwithwind.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-experiment-with-hydro-power-has-been-a-disaster-2010-5

Renewables have a part but are not the solution. There is a serious case for the sole use of nuclear as an energy source not so for renewables.

shadowninty

Worztron wrote: »

Please explain to me how renewable energy can go horribly wrong!

Windmills can collapse but more importantly damage wildlife if they screw up, Dams can burst (killing hundreds), Geothermal (blowouts, gases, seismic events), Solar (roof related deaths)
Dont know about wave.
All of these pale in comparison to fossil fuel generated power, just like the risks of nuclear.
People forget about the scale of this disaster too. Third ever largest recorded earthquake. Coast sunk by one meter in many areas. Brutal.

Overheal

Worztron wrote: »

Please explain to me how renewable energy can go horribly wrong!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

The Waltzing Consumer

shadowninty wrote: »

Windmills can collapse but more importantly damage wildlife if they screw up, Dams can burst (killing hundreds), Geothermal (blowouts, gases, seismic events), Solar (roof related deaths)
Dont know about wave.
All of these pale in comparison to fossil fuel generated power, just like the risks of nuclear..

Those Damn windmills! They may look pretty in Holland, but they are sinister and for some reason, damage wildlife? How? By blowing them?

I also thought your roof related deaths sounds hilarious for solar.

Number one reason not to get solar energy: Well ya know, the guy putting up the stuff on the roof, he could die, yep, fall to his death.

Can't get a satellite dish now, I will be too scared it will cause many deaths.

How about for waves, em, a big wave that could topple and drown midgets.

geetar

Worztron wrote: »

Please explain to me how renewable energy can go horribly wrong!

on a disaster free side of things, if its calm cloudy day, thats two sources of energy right there that arent working.